VIGILANTE SHOPPER: Utah Mom Buys Entire Stock of Obscene T-shirts

A Utah mom who was upset about a line of indecent t-shirts featured in the window at a local store solved the problem in a unique way: She bought them all.

Judy Cox was shopping with her teenage son at University Mall in the city of Orem, about 40 miles south of Salt Lake City, when they saw a provocative new line of t-shirts in the window at PacSun store. The shirts from the “Visual by Van Styles” line, intended for young men, featured semi-nude women in suggestive poses. At least two of the shirts, Cox reported to Utah news station KUTV 2, were in violation of Orem City’s decency code, since women’s buttocks were clearly visible.

Cox complained to the store manager about the shirts’ prominent placement in a store window where children would see them; but she was told that they couldn’t remove the display without approval from the corporate office.

So Cox took matters into her own hands:  She bought all 19 shirts, for a total cost of $567. She would like to throw them out; but instead, Cox plans to return them to the store in 59 days–just before the 60-day return limit.

PacSun continues to stand behind their offensive merchandise. PacSun CEO Gary Schoenfeld released a statement in defense of the clothing line, stating:

PacSun is proud to be a retailer that supports a unique collective of brands, all of which deliver on the California lifestyle through their individual personalities. Our brands take inspiration from a variety of influences including music, art, fashion and action sports. The result is a creative and diverse expression both in product and marketing.

While customer feedback is important to us, we remain committed to the selection of brands and apparel available in our stores.

I applaud Judy Cox’ efforts to protect children in a mall from the irresponsible marketing by a profit-centered corporation. I believe those children also deserve protection from sleazy images when they walk and play on city sidewalks, in public parks, and on sandy beaches. A company that would design and aggressively market soft porn deserves the community’s scorn, and deserves to suffer serious financial consequences.

  • Matthew

    There are so many ways this is flawed. But first let me print up a number of offensive shirts and ship them to Orem so that I, too, can make a lot of money off of this woman’s foolishness. Not only that but she does not actually prevent their sale. She only provides lots of free advertising so that when she returns them to the store there will be lots of customers ready to buy them. In this age of media savvy companies I think we need to be a little cagier about working to fight the culture.
    Matthew

    • http://www.picsofcelebrities.net/blog/2012/05/08/voice-season-finale Cromulent

      Maybe you forgot to read the part where she plans on returning them just before the 60 day return window expires. Sad.

      • TheInformer

        yeah, dude missed a glaring salient point! I may now employ this clever lady’s retail activism!

        • Marie

          ThInfomer, what happens to the shirts once they are returned? They go right back in the window. How clever does the plan seem then?

          • Karl Leinfelder

            Hey Marie, very few plans of action exist that are perfect. Many times when an action is taken there are certain disadvantages or imperfections associated with it. If however, the action gets the message across then it is “mission accomplished”. Look at the attention it did received via all these postings. In this case a small sized action got a lot of attention. My hat is off to that lady who seized the opportunity to present a message.

          • Marie

            There’s a crucial difference between a plan of action that directly contributes to the bottom line of the company (even as a loan) and one that does not. The former is called cooperation with evil and no it’s never acceptable even to achieve a good end.

          • Karl Leinfelder

            Marie, Thanks for participating in the discussion related to the purchase of all those tee shirts. On a superficial basis your explanation could be accepted. However, a review of the postings that have identified numerous concerns, I am sure that the mother never considered them. I myself had not thought about a number of them myself. She acted in good faith and isn’t that what constitutes in part doing something that is considered to be a morally good thing? Incidentally, if you read all the postings related to this topic you will note a number of them have discussed why the action would have been deleterious to the manufacturer as well as the department store sales manager. It is terribly simplistic (and even incorrect) to suggest that her actions was in effect a cooperation with evil. I am really having difficulty in trying to understand why you would make such a statement.

          • Marie

            Karl, one’s motive does not have any bearing on the objective facts about one’s actions. One could have good, bad, or indifferent motives for buying shirts and it does not alter iota the fact that money changed hands and entered the coffers of the company who produced the evil product.

            That is called cooperating with evil, whether one realized it was such at the moment or not. The cooperation is lessened if one takes the money back – and I’m relieved to see she intends to do so -but it still amounts to giving the company a short-term loan, so is objectively not a good response to make to the situation.

            I am really curious why – especially in the face of what you yourself admit are very good reasons for thinking the actions unwise – you are bending over backwards to claim that she did the right and praiseworthy thing? Her actions are not praiseworthy. Her motives, sure. But her actions are emphatically not.

            It’s like a person who thinks it’s a good idea to throw the dog a tasty steak or a fun chew toy whenever he barks as a way to get him to be quiet. Sure their motive – a desire for the dog not to bark – is praiseworthy, but their action is stupid. It will not result in the dog learning not to bark, quite the opposite!

    • Romulus

      While it’s true that she provides some free advertising, that’s the price for getting her own message out there — that these garments are problematic and not to be meekly accepted without resistance.

    • Karl Leinfelder

      Why is it that when some one does the right thing there is always someone who has to make such derogative comments.

  • Dennis Neylon

    What she showed is the couorage to stand up to sleaze merchants. She can’t prevent the shirts’ sale, but she can point out that they are exploiting women, possibly violating local laws and pandering to the lowest common denominator. She can also show what amoral charlatans some retailers are.

  • gregoryvii

    She is exercising her First Amendment right. Liberals love to trot out that one until it is something they disagree with. Then you can hear them scream a mile away.

  • Steve Kellmeyer

    “Tyndale also was soon to receive a severe personal setback, when the ship on which he was travelling was shipwrecked off the coast of Holland. He lost all his precious Bible manuscripts. He had no option, but to start over. But it was not all discouragement. Even his enemies gave finance unwittingly to Tyndale. The Bishop of London bought a shipload of Bibles from a merchant named Packington in the hope that burning the Bibles would stem the tide. The result was the opposite. The Bishop had his Bibles to burn. The merchant had his thanks. Tyndale had enough money to print 51,000 corrected New Testaments.”

    http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/tyndale

    Free advertising. Woman returns shirts on day 59, but the advertising will allow the shop to sell out twice instead of once, and they get to hold her money for 60 days, using it to subsidize purchase of more material.

    Woman buys a righteous feeling without actually having made any difference at all, shop sells twice as many shirts as would otherwise be possible – everybody wins!

    • Karl Leinfelder

      Talk about a negative response to someone who was doing the the right thing.

      • Matthew

        Karl:
        You have twice asserted, without evidence, that what she did was the right thing. My point is precisely that she did NOT do the right thing. In my origin post I offered evidence as to why I did not think this was the right thing to do. Please explain why you believe that what she did was the right thing.
        PS: Let’s keep this objective and avoid any sentences that begin with I believe / feel. Such statements are the ground of moral relativism – which I am sure we both reject.
        Thanks, Matthew

        • Karl Leinfelder

          Matthew: Thanks for your remarks. The fact that she carried out that unusual action makes it note and news worthy. Doing so promulgates to a number of people that there is an objection by some that painting someone’s gluteus maximus on a tee shirt to be worn by children is inappropriate. It may not have cost her anything monetarily since she was apparently going to return them but she did what she believed and that was addressing a “wrong doing”.

          • CRS

            There is something to be said for matching righteous indignation with wise actions. Not sure her action was wise but I admire her fire for sure!

      • Marie

        Right thing? I totally get Mr Kellmeyer’s point. I immediately had a similar thought when I read the headline. “What? She responded to the obscene shirt by buying the whole stock? That is like trying to teach a dog not to bark by throwing him a steak to quiet him down.” What do you think the long term result of that would be?

        I was somewhat relieved to read that she plans to return the shirts. Yet I do wonder whether she has any next step planned. Surely once the shirts are returned the store will simply put them up in the window again. What then?

  • Patrick Coffin

    As a father who feels the Fed Up feeling most days, I get this lady’s outrage. But this is a well intentioned, understandable, dumb idea. Forget the manager — he made his money and will now make much more thanks to the free publicity. I can hear his cackle from here. If Orem has local bylaws forbidding indecency, that’s where the fight needs to be taken. In the United States, obscenity is determined by “community standards” — which are, in turn, contingent on the people in the community and on their resolve to push back.

    • Karl Leinfelder

      Dear Patrick, Thanks for your comments. You generated some good and workable thoughts. I agree that there may be actions taken by someone or some groups of peoples that would be more effective than what this female customer did. On the other hand this lady did something that was in accordance with her conscience and perhaps spirituality. It was something that the very vast majority of others would not imitate. You must agree that it not only received a great deal of notoriety but the response to what she did was immediate. She truly believed that it was inappropriate for children or the younger generation to be running around with a depiction of someone’s “gluteus maximus” on their chest. You are correct in that the sales manager receives his commission or fee whether she returns the tee shirts or not. And yes, the store or enterprise that markets the shirts will do even better after the information about what had occurred is promulgated. Personally however, I do laud her for doing something positive about a situation she perceived as morally objectionable. Your thoughts?

      • Patrick Coffin

        Hi Kurt. Sure – my thoughts are summarized in the second sentence of my post.

  • Rhodia

    My goodness !! Women’s BUTTOCKS were visible ?? (Ugh), REVOLTING !! This “society” is far too permissive ! Now, to be sensible, I’d like to suggest some nice colour-coordinated gabardine coveralls, with locking zippers, and suitably modest rear flaps for.., well, you know.. (nudge,wink..), Ahem, and perhaps a nice form-fitting head-bag..

    • Karl Leinfelder

      Dear liberal , fellow poster. A review of your spelling would indicate that you may be from the UK and not the US. The addition of additional letters in a word (i.e. “u”) can be rather expensive in the long run. I wonder how much more it costs to publish a standard sized book in your language than it does in this country. And incidentally the addition of the extra letter doesn’t seem to have a profound effect on pronunciation. Now to the point. You attempt to be humorous (and sarcastic) in your deliberation was received with a bit of irritation. It would (or could) have been more profitable it you rebutted with a bit of seriousness.

      • Hegesippus

        As much as I agree with your reply to the content of the post above yours, the elongated and pointless dig at someone’s point of origin was humourless to say the least.

        • Karl Leinfelder

          One the contrary, most of those who admit that they have a sense of humor would agree that it was on the light side. It was all posted in fun. It makes me wonder if you are the one who lacks a sense of humor.

          • Hegesippus

            The beauty of your post was, most definitely, in the eye of the author, Karl. Methinks yours was the first comment to criticise another’s humour; should others desist from criticising yours?

        • Karl Leinfelder

          Did you see the post in which I said that no insult was intended. Instead it was a statement in the frame of humor. While we are on the subject I noticed that you are from the UK as well. It’s a great place. I have been there twice and really enjoyed the country and the people. Have a great day.

          • Hegesippus

            Fair play, Karl. That gives you open day on insulting everyone because you said no insult was intended! Me too, no insult intended. So please retract your contention with my post. (Is this how it works?)

          • Karl Leinfelder

            Dear Hegesippus, I haven’t detected your presence on the Internet as of late. Are you continuing to post or just moved away. Regarding your comment about my insulting one’s place of origin I remain mystified as to how you came to the conclusion that I was insulting. I merely noticed that the way that you spelled certain words would suggest that you are from the UK. In fact I went out of the way to tell you that I had been there a couple of times and really enjoyed my stays. Incidentally, I have been studying the evolution of the English language over the last two thousand years and find that it is quite interesting. Covers the times from Beowulf, to Chaucer through the era of Shakespeare and up to the present time. In fact I just ordered on line a book of the history of the English language. Again, no insults were intended and don’t misunderstand my sense of humor.

          • Hegesippus

            Feel free, Karl, not to be detecting my presence on the internet. I am glad you do not find it easy:-)

            My original comment was in reply to your response to Rhodia. You did not respond to her content, or even make it an ad hominem, but proceeded to write more of an ad linguam (can I copywrite this concept?). Hope the grammar is correct.

            Good luck with the English study. It’s not quite two full millennia old. Nowhere near it, in fact.

          • Karl Leinfelder

            Now that is what I would identify as an almost instantaneous response. Now as far as the English language is concerned you would do well by doing some exploration of the subject matter. The origin of the English language is attributed to a number of German tribes who lived in Denmark and also in what is now known as north western Germany. Identified as Jutes, Angelns and Saxons. They left their homes around 450 (according to Bede, a monk of great historical reputation) when the Romans left the country (upon the over throw of the Roman Empire). By traveling over the North Sea they settled in Britain. Their history is well documented and
            published in numerous texts. English is a west German language brought to Britain by Germanic invaders (the ones already mentioned). English is considered to be a “borrowing language” since so much of the vocabulary comes from many, many languages. Finally the English language can be conveniently group as follows: Proto-English, Old English, Middle English and lastly Modern English (early and current). The history of the English language is a bit more complicated than that but this summary provides what is considered to be the backbone of the transformation.
            Since my heritage is German and English (American) my speaking mode, I was quite interested in how this whole thing came together. You shouldn’t argue with a Professor Emeritus. By the way, you never did inform me as to what country you hailed from. Have a great day.

          • Hegesippus

            I shouldn’t argue with a professor emeritus? Is that an infallible position?

            BTW, 2014-450 does not equal 2000.

            I am very well aware of the origins of the English language and how it developed over the several stages of invasion over the centuries. I am also very aware of its interplay throughout the British Isles and how that continues, and how at the time of the American Revolution spellings were still flexible, finally settling upon the patterns that stimulated your original comment.

            I am also quite surprised that a professor emeritus would presume that the pretty-much-anonymous fellow poster he is dialoguing with is ignorant about a specific subject and proceed to give a 101 lecture unbidden. But then, I shouldn’t argue.

          • Karl Leinfelder

            I appears that I was correct in my initial posting that you exhibit very little evidence of being endowed with a sense of humor. If in fact you do have one, it is remotely foreign to any with which I am familiar. Secondly, rather than admitting that you intellectually fall short of possessing all the answers, you try to overwhelm me with silly and incredulous arguments. For example, you tried to inform me about the inexactness of the period of time in which the English language has existed. I stated two millenniums. You argued that the date I gave you related to the migration of the west German tribes was only in the year 450 AD. Obviously they (the tribes) did not immigrate the day they initiated their presence in Denmark and Northern Germany. They were there far longer than that. In fact, unless I am in error, their genesis existed well prior to the changing of the calendar (B.C. to A.D.). The point is that the time table that I presented to you is far closer to two thousand years than the time frame that you presented to me. If the material that I presented to you is only on a 101 level of an undergraduate college or university, I would have enjoyed matriculating into the lecture series. You still have not answered me; are you a citizen of the Isles?

          • Hegesippus

            Karl, if you’re going to define “humour” in such a subjective manner, it is clear that you are using a liberal set of guidelines. Simply, I don’t find you funny. Indeed I find your comments very presumptious.

            This is reinforced by your decision to lecture me on a subject I am very aware of, having studied it and then taught it. You seem to want to claim that English existed before the Anglo Saxon “invasion” of the British Isles. That it evolved from the Germanic dialects is clear. That it only evolved from them is simplistic and false. Your earlier recognition that English is a ‘borrowing language’ seems to have been at least delayed in the timeline of linguistic development. To claim that English only originated from the German (but later mutated into a ‘borrowing language’) presumes that there was no real interaction between the “invaders” and the Celtic and “post-Roman” inhabitants of the British Isles. This is historically untrue for there was, from the very beginning, significant interaction and mingling between the different peoples. Not only can this be found in the journeys from paganism to Christianity of the “invaders” but the fact that Christianity was growing rapidly at this time is also a sign that these tribes were not alone in having a great influence at the time.

            My issue with your comments, Karl, have been the tone you have employed. You presume much and you’re not afraid to show this:
            ‘you would do well by doing some exploration of the subject matter’,
            ‘You shouldn’t argue with a Professor Emeritus’,
            ‘you intellectually fall short of possessing all the answers’,
            ‘you try to overwhelm me with silly and incredulous arguments’.

            It’s a shame, Karl, that you have employed such a tone. Without it, we could have had a far more productive discussion. However, as a professor emeritus, I would have hoped for more than to suffer from a liberal sprinkling of ad hominem. If you still think it is clear that I am an ignoramus then I am glad that I have not learned from you and good luck with your studies. I hope you find a better source than the one you have been using.

          • Karl Leinfelder

            Good Sunday morning to you, Hegesippus. First of all, I received and enjoyed your post related to a number of scenarios. To begin with I appreciated your honesty and directness in posting our apparent differences. Before going any further permit me to present a couple of thoughts. After giving it some meditation I concluded that I at least was not clear in my postings. You and I have travelled down two different highways. Yours is in the field of humanities whereas mine is in the realm of science. These two fields have been in disagreement and perhaps somewhat disrespectful of each another ever since (and even now) they were recognized as entities. I know, for example, as I think back, I was never really interested in what rewards these academic disciplines could yield to those who seriously became interested in what they had to offer. My interests now have been redirected towards the field of humanities and specifically include religion and European history. You are an authority on languages and classical literature whereas I am not. Related to this comment, I wish to emphasize that my knowledge about the language discussion comes from a non academic (university based and formal education). More than anything it is that I now like to share with those who would be interested in listening. Speaking to you about such a discipline is akin to preaching to the choir. I really did not try using the “argumentum ad hominem” approach. Hope that helps.

          • Hegesippus

            Don’t forget that theology is the Queen of Sciences! :-)

            Which branch of science?

          • Karl Leinfelder

            Good morning again. I took the opportunity to check on your “avatar” and noted that you adopted the name of a second century saint (110 – 180 AD). While I have had the privilege of experiencing a good and thorough Catholic education including time in a seminary, I must admit that I had not previously been exposed to someone named Hegesippus who converted from the Jewish faith to Christianity (Catholic). It was interesting to note that he was the first to record the succession of popes from St. Peter to St. Eleutherius. Not as well known as St. Francis (of Assisi) he did make sainthood. And by the way I am not presenting this information as a lecture; just some interesting notes I observed.
            Over the last year or so I have spent a considerable amount of time posting about the immorality of abortions, premarital relations and the evils of pornography. I just recently realized that you had also published quite a few notes defending the Catholic faith and the dogmas of the church. My intention was to compliment you but in light of the confrontation generated by our discussions I felt a little timid in doing so. Nonetheless, let me state that it’s a great cause and in fact an obligation to defend the liturgical dogmas when the opportunity arises. Continue promulgating what needs to be said.

          • Hegesippus

            Thanks, Karl. God bless.

  • TheInformer

    what the hell is wrong with people and some craven companies? Hope she DOES return the shirts, singly over the course of 4 hours and wastes their time…..time is money? They don’t profit, THEY LOSE! hahahahahahahah derisively

  • Brian O’Neel

    Schoenfeld said, “While customer feedback is important to us, we remain committed to the selection of brands and apparel available in our stores.” Obviously, it’s not important. There’s no indication he’s willing to say, “Gosh, maybe we screwed up. We will conduct a review to determine whether we have violated either good taste or community standards or have inadvertantly objectified women (after all, when one woman is objectified, all women are in a certain sense).”

  • Brian O’Neel

    @stevekellmeyer:disqus @Matthew @karlleinfelder:disqus — Had she not done what she did, I would never have known about Vans’/PacSun’s products or its disingenuous CEO. Now I know. So, yes, she gave V/PS publicity, but it wasn’t good publicity (unless you’re of the same mind as Andrew Loog Oldham). She made a reasonable request. She was essentially told to stuff it. She responded in the only way she knew how. In the end, except as a protest vote, the company doesn’t stand to make a cent, because she’s returning all the merchandise. And now parents like me with teens possessing disposable income can determine that not a cent of their family’s income — regardless of the source — will go to V/PS’s bottom line. So they’re actually losing money. Vans was a great company when I was in junior high. Every kid in Southern California wanted to wear Vans sneakers and T-shirts. It was the height of surfer cool, just like A&F used to carry a more Ralph Lauren-like line and was fashionable for guys who wanted to look nice on a date or something. Now both retailers cater to the most purile instincts. I’ll never again spend a cent with either one of them. Just like I’ll starve before I eat at Hardee’s/Carls Jr. after what they did with Carl Karcher and the ads they’ve run in the wake of Karcher’s being kicked off the board of his own company. And what’s your alternative? Keep quiet and say nothing while the frog slowly boils in water? Because that’s what’s happening in our culture. Mrs. Cox is a hero. Whether history proves her right or wrong — and that hasn’t been determined yet — she took a stand, a noble stand, and a just stand.

    • Marie

      It’s true that by returning them she’s merely given the store a loan rather than an actual payment. But even that is far too much “buy in” (pun intended) to the evil product in my opinion.

      There are plenty of ways she could have gotten publicity without giving the company money even temporarily. There’s a max six degrees of separation between any two people: Even if all she did was just started email chains and getting friends to tell friends about Vans/PacSun’s evil ways chances are you would have soon heard about it.

      The end result is the same: bad publicity and the shirts are still in the window. But without any of her money having been given to this company, even as a loan.

  • Thomas Vogler

    My impression was that the thing that upset the woman, the provocation, was that the shirts were featured in the shop window, where children had to see them. By buying them all, she was able to eliminate (for a time, anyway) the offensive display.

    Her request that the store remove the display having been denied, I’m not sure what else she could have done, legally, to get the shirts out of the window. It was an effective and non violent strategy. It’s probably true that this is not a method that would get rid of such shirts altogether, but there’s nothing in the article to suggest that was her intention.

    There was a period when pornography was displayed for sale where it could be seen by children (and the rest of us). The pornography problem generally is still with us, but maybe it’s better that the magazines aren’t on face-out display at the markets where children buy candy after school. As I recall, public demonstrations of dissaproval, such as the one in this article, helped to achieve that worthwhile, though limited, good.

  • ClassicalTeacher

    Although I share her outrage, all she did, basically, was put money in the pocket of whoever created the T-shirts. Whoever this person is couldn’t care less where he/she received the cash for the t-shirts. IMO, this lady shot herself in the foot. Better to just not shop at this store and to encourage others not to. She could have used that wasted money on donations to a local pregnancy crisis center or to create clever fliers or posters denouncing the continuing decay of morals in this country. Buying the t-shirts merely put money in the pocket of the t-shirt creator. Not a very bright idea.

    • kathyschiffer

      Perhaps you missed it, but she plans to return all the shirts on the 59th day. What she accomplished was to make a public protest, get attention of their corporate offices, carry her message to the media including television, encourage like-minded Christians to protest, and take the shirts out of stock for the season, then she’ll get a full refund.

      • Marie

        All of those accomplishments you list are great except the last one and could have very easily been achieved without the last one. Plenty of other people manage to protest various goods and services – and yes get them successfully get them removed from the market on a permanent not temporary basis – without once *purchasing* same goods and services.

        In fact, I question exactly what *kind* of attention the corporate offices are paying to her. I have a strong suspicion that they are not at all chagrined by her “protest” but rubbing their hands in glee. See the Tyndale example someone else gave above.

        This was a well intentioned, but very poorly thought out action on her part.

        • kathyschiffer

          If she had destroyed the shirts or hadn’t requested a refund, she would have given the store $567 of her hard-earned dollars. A reward for selling obscenity!

          • Marie

            That’s why she shouldn’t have bought them in the first place. Having made that mistake, all she can do now is return them, of course.

          • Marie

            My so strongly objecting to it as a ‘loan’ is because she’s waiting 59 days to return the things. That’s giving them $567 loan of her “hard-earned dollars” – plus free publicity. “A reward for selling obscenity!”

            Leaving aside the monetary cooperation in the evil, another thing to understand is that – even apart from marketing truisms such as ‘nothing moves product like a good controversy’ – many grown up evildoers are just like schoolyard miscreants in that they take a perverse pleasure in negative attention. It inflates and encourages them. This is part of the reason low-key strategies sometimes end up being more effective than highly dramatic ones.

          • Karl Leinfelder

            Marie. I think that most posters would see the positive side of the story. They would or at least should see that she was doing something that she thought was a positive action against the liberation of morals going on in this country.

          • Karl Leinfelder

            That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

          • Karl Leinfelder

            But she didn’t destroy the shirts and will experience a return of the money she paid for them.

    • Karl Leinfelder

      The amount of money that the manufactures profit from this action is minimal at best. The great thing about the action is that it brought about a focus of thoughts about the wrongful liberalism being conducted in this country. Good for the lady from Texas.

  • Robbe Sebesta

    Huge applause from this mom in Texas!!! We can’t do a lot when we’re up against corporate America, but we do what we can and what she did was awesome.

    • Karl Leinfelder

      All the attention this posting received should be effective to letting others know that there is a definite opposition to the liberal attitude taken by so many citizens in this country and around the globe. It is in fact a duty of ours to speak out against those actions that we believe are wrong and immoral. We should witness more of that type of activity.

  • Greta

    Hey Judy,
    Way to thnk outside the box! A similar thing happened to me, and a few days later, I had this epiphany that led me to found http://www.voicesinthesquare.org. Culture has gone the way it has because not enough of us have said, “Sorry, no!” Stand up and speak. Teach yourself to be bold, and lead others to stand up and be bold. We have to do this for Christ and our children!

  • Dale

    Ms Cox says that she has already made her point. If people want to help, she suggests they donate to an organization called “Fight The New Drug.” It is a non-profit organization aimed to educate teens about the harmful
    effects of pornography and just how addictive it can be. It has been
    featured in The Washington Post, on CNN, Nightline and Fox News.

    She suggests a donation of $27.95, which is the cost of one of those t-shirts.
    http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/orem/t-shirt-mom-says-she-made-her-point/article_50e4e5de-e21f-59b1-951a-dd14866ec374.html


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X